VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Personally think a lot of what's being said is pie in the Sky the majority of people will not pay for individual subs bundling content is here to stay for some time.

+1

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Personally think a lot of what's being said is pie in the Sky the majority of people will not pay for individual subs bundling content is here to stay for some time.

Which is why it seems to me that Sky, VM etc are moving towards offering a bundle of streamers for one price all using the same interface, so no need to go into separate apps.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Personally think a lot of what's being said is pie in the Sky the majority of people will not pay for individual subs bundling content is here to stay for some time.

I think what will happen ultimately is that there will be bundles of streaming services rather than bundles of scheduled channels, as Horizon says.

Sky is already thinking along these lines, as evidenced by its own box sets being bundled with Netflix. It makes perfect sense to me.

[muppetman11]

So currently Disney/Fox license their content across many broadcasters in every country.

In the scenario your describing they keep all their content exclusive and only available in their own streaming service. That's going to require them to recoup significant worldwide subscriptions especially in the world your describing of many streaming services.

[Horizon]

Exactly right muppetman, but I don't see there being many streamers though. And it's not my scenario, it's what the media companies are opening talking about now.

Take Germany as but one example, Disney and RTL have their joint venture channel called Super RTL, basically the Disney channel in all but name. How can that channel survive when Disney's global streamer launches? Replicate that across the world. It will be a bloodbath.

It's this exact reason why the old Hollywood companies have been reluctant to step too deeply into streaming, as it will close off major sources of revenue for them with no guarantee of success with their streaming services. But they have no choice. Netflix has turned everything upside down and the media companies either compete and copy Netflix, or die.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Personally think a lot of what's being said is pie in the Sky the majority of people will not pay for individual subs bundling content is here to stay for some time.

I’m not the first to +1 this many posters on here have done so already, and quite rightly.

It’s not just the principle of bundling content into Sky or Virgin’s basic packages, it’s the fact it is a significant portion of revenue to those out there.

Sky/Liberty can also increase the contribution they wish to make for any content on a whim, absorbing small losses here and there where appropriate.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Exactly right muppetman, but I don't see there being many streamers though. And it's not my scenario, it's what the media companies are opening talking about now.

Take Germany as but one example, Disney and RTL have their joint venture channel called Super RTL, basically the Disney channel in all but name. How can that channel survive when Disney's global streamer launches? Replicate that across the world. It will be a bloodbath.

It's this exact reason why the old Hollywood companies have been reluctant to step too deeply into streaming, as it will close off major sources of revenue for them with no guarantee of success with their streaming services. But they have no choice. Netflix has turned everything upside down and the media companies either compete and copy Netflix, or die.

Off the top of my head

1. Disney/Fox
2. Netflix
3. Amazon
4. Comcast/Universal
5. Warner Media

That’s just the bigger players you then have the likes of Viacom , Discovery the list goes on.

My point is all of those have their content across pay tv channels , terrestrial channels and included in pay TV On Demand packages. A subscription to the likes of VM or Sky currently offers you a selection to content from most of those listed and I struggle to get my head around how people think having to subscribe to all these numerous streaming packages will be somehow better.

People seem to think this streaming world will rid of us all ads which frankly is laughable.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Off the top of my head

1. Disney/Fox
2. Netflix
3. Amazon
4. Comcast/Universal
5. Warner Media

That’s just the bigger players you then have the likes of Viacom , Discovery the list goes on.

My point is all of those have their content across pay tv channels , terrestrial channels and included in pay TV On Demand packages. A subscription to the likes of VM or Sky currently offers you a selection to content from most of those listed and I struggle to get my head around how people think having to subscribe to all these numerous streaming packages will be somehow better.

People seem to think this streaming world will rid of us all ads which frankly is laughable.

Streaming is just inviting advertising into your home in a different (and much more targeted) way.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by jfman

Streaming is just inviting advertising into your home in a different (and much more targeted) way.

Completely agree

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Off the top of my head

1. Disney/Fox
2. Netflix
3. Amazon
4. Comcast/Universal
5. Warner Media

That’s just the bigger players you then have the likes of Viacom , Discovery the list goes on.

My point is all of those have their content across pay tv channels , terrestrial channels and included in pay TV On Demand packages. A subscription to the likes of VM or Sky currently offers you a selection to content from most of those listed and I struggle to get my head around how people think having to subscribe to all these numerous streaming packages will be somehow better.

People seem to think this streaming world will rid of us all ads which frankly is laughable.

Lets see what happens with ads. Netflix is trialling them in America and AT&T is thinking about it. I agree the steamers may not be ad free, but I would expect a few options. One being a more premium option, add free, for a higher price and the other being a ad option for a lower price or no price at all like Sony's Crackle service.

As to whether it will be better, we'll have to see how it all plays out. I have suspicions that it won't be cheaper than current pay tv subs, in fact probably a lot more expensive, but as I said in the other thread, streaming will bring about the death of most linear tv.

Put it this way, if the only place to watch Star Wars, Marvel etc is Disney's streaming service and baring in mind the decline of DVDs now, for those with the dosh, could they afford not to subscribe to Disney's streamer?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Off the top of my head

1. Disney/Fox
2. Netflix
3. Amazon
4. Comcast/Universal
5. Warner Media

That’s just the bigger players you then have the likes of Viacom , Discovery the list goes on.

My point is all of those have their content across pay tv channels , terrestrial channels and included in pay TV On Demand packages. A subscription to the likes of VM or Sky currently offers you a selection to content from most of those listed and I struggle to get my head around how people think having to subscribe to all these numerous streaming packages will be somehow better.

People seem to think this streaming world will rid of us all ads which frankly is laughable.

It won't be.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Off the top of my head

1. Disney/Fox
2. Netflix
3. Amazon
4. Comcast/Universal
5. Warner Media

That’s just the bigger players you then have the likes of Viacom , Discovery the list goes on.

My point is all of those have their content across pay tv channels , terrestrial channels and included in pay TV On Demand packages. A subscription to the likes of VM or Sky currently offers you a selection to content from most of those listed and I struggle to get my head around how people think having to subscribe to all these numerous streaming packages will be somehow better.

People seem to think this streaming world will rid of us all ads which frankly is laughable.

People in the imaginary world will.

[Horizon]

But 130m people, the amount of people who currently pay for Netflix, disagree.

[denphone]

And many of those have it as a add on to supplement their normal Linear TV viewing.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

And many of those have it as a add on to supplement their normal Linear TV viewing.

As do I, but once all the kind of programmes I watch are streamed, I and many others will ditch scheduled linear TV.

I don't understand this love affair some people are having with an outdated, inflexible system, given the much better alternative, free of advertisements and there when you want it.

I completely understand that there are still problems to be overcome with live streaming, but in a few short years, those problems will be a thing of the past.

I think most people, given the value for money streaming services provide, would go for the streaming services rather than the existing channels if they would be better off as a result. I am already paying for Netflix, Prime and Now TV, so if two or three more streaming services came along to fill in the gaps, I would be very happy to go for them and ditch the £60 or so I am paying now for the pay tv channels.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by denphone

And many of those have it as a add on to supplement their normal Linear TV viewing.

Is it linear if watched at a diff time, Den?